Review of the book “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand
I have finished listening to one of the classic American books, one which is often read in schools, and one which significantly influenced modern American philosophy. Ayn Rand was born in Russia in 1905 and fled to the United States after the revolution. She finished the novel in 1957. In the book, one can hear echos of Soviet revolution in the descriptions of chaos and methods of country leaders, as well as the influences of socialist ideology popular across the world at the time.
This is an incredible, genius book, which at the same time has a lot of areas which could be much better. So I start with the things I didn’t like, to finish with those which I liked a lot.
What is not so good about this book
Love and sincere relationships portrayed in the book are born as a result and logical conclusion of reason. They are drawn from having the same values, and thus are earned by those who share those values and exercise the choice to think. The value of reason, a major focus of the book, is presented as the human instrument of survival and the path to prosperity. However, when Dagny Taggart, the main character of the book, switches from one love to another, her previous lovers for some reason wholeheartedly accept her new choices and in some cases even bless them (as Hank Rearden accepted her love to John Galt), even though all of them keep staying in love with her. This logically contradicts their own survival goals, their own interests, which should have been their main focus, according to the book’s morale. There is very few other women in their circle, and even fewer of those who closely share the same values, thus practically dooming them to stay alone for the rest of their lives. For Francisco d’Anconia, this is in addition to the 12 years he already stayed alone, idealizing Dagny, waiting due to his inability to be with her when pursuing his goals, and hoping she would come to fighting the system their way. In other words, relationships and love we see in the story are not consistent with the main theme and philosophy of the book.
The story of Eddie Willers is hopeless, and doesn't work well with the purpose of the book. All the main positive characters in the book are heroes, business executives, superhuman, incredibly smart and strong. But Eddie is just a standard talented person, who is dedicated to his job, and to Dagny, his childhood friend, boss, and secret unrequited love. He has all the right values, hard working, and has enough moral courage (for his standard) to stand for his views. His only drawback is that he is not smart enough. And he never gets invited to John’s valley, he never even gets a chance to escape from the system. There is an opinion that his fate intensifies the effect of what disasters such a system can bring. But the book is intended to describe a philosophy, and Eddie’s path does not bring any hope for ordinary human to survive, and thus is just discouraging to accept the philosophy.
Criticism of sacrifice and unconditional love in John Galt’s speech takes extreme examples of sacrifice. Based on these examples, John attempts to show flaws in the philosophy of the looters, and socialism in general. He criticizes the morale by showing that if people followed it, obvious destruction would happen. This is flawed as almost any morale or philosophy taken in its extreme leads to an unrealistic destructive state, thus such argumentation isn’t very convincing.
What is great about this book
The energy and determination with which Dagny and Hank are fighting for their values, and their world, is unprecedented, and described in such details and language, that the book leaves no doubts that the author has deep understanding of their struggle and emotional state. The difficulty of Dagny’s decisions, the inner conflict and business hardships she experiences after she sees other leaders quitting their companies and disappearing, the desire to be either fully committed to her path, or to fully learn and accept a new one, — makes the readers live through her feelings and state of mind. Being committed to your work and what you produce, fully devoting your mind and energy to it, and promoting the value that production is what moves the world forward for yourself and everybody else, is an idea presented in the book with unmatched attention and quality.
The ideas of getting honest rewards for one’s quality work independent on who you are, working for yourself, bearing responsibility for one’s choices, and having to make those choices as part of the conscious choice to live, being committed to one’s principles and being able to stand for them, — are foundational ideas of the book. They are shown in so many situations and grounded in so many conversations, that it is hard to pinpoint specific ones in this review. But this is what makes the book great, the rounded well-justified description of its fundamental principles.
The central part of the philosophy is the idea that human values, events, and knowledge are objective, that they exist and have to be discovered by logical conclusions, and not created by the thoughts one has. The book attempts to prove, quite convincingly, that the opposite thinking is destructive even if not taken to an extreme. Subjectivity, Ayn Rand says, is unproductive, and thus destructive and immoral. Especially when one needs to make decisions.
Summary
Overall, I liked the book very much, except for some of the points mentioned above. The book is worth reading even if you don’t agree with the philosophy fully or at all, as it describes the logic, environment, and feelings of the characters, such that you start sharing the decision making process and thinking about moral principles and definition of morality.
